Incumbents in Congress usually have a huge fund-raising advantage over challengers. Big donors correctly assume they will probably be in office for years, and curry favor with contributions that only wealthy challengers can match. So why not try to neutralize this advantage by spending money on behalf of challengers?

It’s a seductive notion, and a group of well-heeled activists decided to take action, raising money to help defeat selected incumbent House members — of both parties — in competitive primary races. They say they are doing it in the name of good government.

But the method they are using — a super PAC that can collect and spend unlimited amounts of money — is the opposite of good government, and demonstrates the inherent danger in allowing big money to steer election results. The handful of donors say their motives are pure, but the public has no way of knowing what their long-term goals are, or whether they have personal interests in the races they have chosen.

The Campaign for Primary Accountability, as the super PAC is known, has raised nearly $1.8 million for attack ads against liberal and conservative incumbents of both parties. A spokesman says it targets only House members with multiple terms, facing contested primaries in districts dominated by one party, and where the PAC’s polling shows voters’ discontent with their representation.

The PAC spent $200,000 to help defeat Jean Schmidt, a three-term Ohio Republican, who lost her primary this month to a more conservative newcomer. It unsuccessfully tried to oust Marcy Kaptur, an Ohio Democrat who was running against the more liberal Dennis Kucinich in a new district, and last week failed to unseat Spencer Bachus, a powerful Alabama Republican who is under an ethics investigation. It plans to keep spending in primaries, and the power of its money in small Congressional districts [Comment: Huh? All Congressional districts in a state have about the same number of people.] is making many longtime members nervous. [Comment: As well it should! Now, maybe they'll pay attention to the concerns of their constituents.]

Many incumbents deserve to be challenged, but the PAC thinks that end justifies any means. [Comment: So what? It's all protected by the First Amendment, right?] Since it lacks any ideological compass, it used a Tea Party argument against Ms. Schmidt — one ad complained that she voted to raise the debt limit — and a liberal argument against Jesse Jackson Jr., an Illinois Democrat, who the PAC says has not been strong enough in using government to protect women and children.

And for all of its populist talk about being “the equalizer” in these races, 95 percent of its money so far has come from just four wealthy men with conservative bents: Leo Linbeck III, a Houston builder who has campaigned against national health care reform; Eric O’Keefe, who helped found U.S. Term Limits; Tim Dunn, chairman of Texans for Fiscal Responsibility; and J. Joe Ricketts, founder of TD Ameritrade, who has crusaded against earmarks and federal spending.

Political entrenchment is a problem in a Congress where 90 percent of the districts are dominated by a single party and incumbents can often take their re-election for granted. Those who want to change that can better spend their money supporting nonpartisan redistricting in state legislatures. They can also oppose state attempts to limit voter turnout, and use their money to encourage voter registration and participation in both primary and general elections. [Comment: In other words, The Times only supports the usual ineffectual solutions. Did it ever occur to The Times that so-called attack ads can "encourage voter registration and participation in both primary and general elections"?]

And they can lay down the weapon of the super PAC, which gives corporations and the wealthy an outsized voice in campaigns. Attack ads, which are their stock in trade, are tainting the political process and turning off many voters. [Comment: If those voters stay home, incumbents win yet again.] Unlimited political money breeds corruption and cynicism, and cannot produce a better government.

Comment: Unfortunately for The Times, real people can do research, too. Over many years [at least back to 1990], The Times has consistently editorialized against Term Limits, noting that voters can always throw out incumbents in the next election.

Well, the Campaign for Primary Accountability has figured out a way to help voters do exactly that: by seriously backing challengers who can WIN! 'So what if it's just four rich white guys donating what, to them, is peanuts. Their four votes count the same as anyone else's in the election itself.

Don't forget: Real American voters, not The Times, freely choose whom to nominate as their party's candidates for the next Congress, and whom to elect in November.

If The Times has a problem with the American people participating in the political process to influence their future, well, The Times must think that American voters are Muppets.

Thursday, March 08, 2012

Campaign for Primary Accountability: Well Done!

This blog strongly endorses and congratulates the Campaign for Primary Accountability, a SuperPAC targeting incumbents in both parties running for re-election in gerrymandered, non-competitive districts.

Rep. "Mean" Jean Schmidt [R-OH] lost her March 7 Republican Primary to physician and Iraq veteran Brad Wenstrup. As this is a safe Republican seat, it is likely that Mr. Wenstrup will serve in the next Congress.

Prior to this unexpected upset, the national media [including the New York Times] just ignored primary challengers. This woke them up, too.

Remember: If you are perfectly satisfied with how things are in our country now, please vote to re-elect incumbents.

If you're not, Voting Against Incumbents is your only effective message. They don't care about anything else, because they don't have to.

Friday, May 21, 2010

Rand Paul: Senator from Somalia?

Kentucky Republicans, supported by the Tea Party movement, sent a decisive message to Sen. Mitch McConnell [R-KY] and the Kentucky and Washington, D.C., political establishments by choosing Rand Paul as their nominee for Senate.

Of course, only now is the MSM actually paying attention to Rand Paul and his libertarian political philosophy, specifically with respect to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So, we have Kentucky Republicans to thank for catching the MSM asleep at the switch!

Comment: If Rand Paul were a real Libertarian, long ago he would have moved to Somalia, which has no government and is the one land of pure freedom on this Earth.